Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022210CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING AND JOINT WORKSHOP WITH EAST JEFFERSON FIRE AND RESCUE COMMISSIONERS OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The special meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Michelle Sandoval at 6:15 p.m. in City Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were David King, Laurie Medlicott, Kris Nelson, George Randels, Michelle Sandoval and Mark Welch. Catharine Robinson was excused. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, Grant Manager Ken Horvath and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. SHARED RESOURCE CONSERVATION MANAGER PROGRAM Ken Horvath, city grant manager, reviewed the packet materials. He noted that the agreement would provide funding for a resource conservation manager to implement a program to reduce energy costs throughout the partner organizations. He stated the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the document and approved it unanimously at their meeting today. The Council reviewed the document and discusssed the concept at last week's business meeting. There was no public comment. Mrs. Medlicott asked for confirmation that all partners are signing the same document. Mr. Timmons confirmed. Motion: David King moved to authorize the City Manager to sign an interloca! agreement for Shared Resource Conservation Management services. George Rande/s seconded. Vote: motion carried unanimously, 6-0 by voice vote. ADJOURN The special meeting was adjourned at 6:25 pm CITY COUNCIUEAST JEFFERSON FIRE RESCUE JOINT WORKSHOP CALL TO ORDER (6:30 P.M.) The joint workshop meeting between the City Councii and the East Jefferson Fire and Rescue Commissioners was called to order at 6:31 p.m. Council Special Business Mtg and Workshop with East Jefferson Fire Rescue Feb. 22, 2010 Page 1 of 5 ROLL CALL Councilmembers present at roll call were David King, Laurie Medlicott, Kris Nelson, George Randels, Michelle Sandoval, and Mark Welch. Catharine Robinson was excused. Fire Commissioners present were Rich Stap, Zane Wyll, and Jess Bondurant. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, City Clerk Pam Kolacy, and Fire Chief Gordon Pomeroy. DISCUSSION: FUTURE INTERLOCAL ARRANGEMENTS Chief Pomeroy stated he is here to present information to the City on the Fire and EMS levies the District plans to place on the April ballot as well as bringing information on beginning the process for a strategic plan for the District that will at some time encompass the City. Funding from the proposed levies would support capital improvements as well as additional full time employees. Mr. Timmons noted the City and District have a strong interlocal agreement and that the next stage in the evolution of the relationship would be an annexation, which is an approach that many communities have already taken. He added the process will be expensive, but that in some respects when you look at what we have been allocating for fire and EMS services, it is among the lowest in the state. He said that each entity depends on the support of the other and a common understanding and sense of direction must be agreed upon so the long term best interests of the communities can be served. Mr. Timmons noted that the District operates on a dedicated levy for Fire and EMS. The City operates on a general levy which supports fire service as well as other city services. He distributed a spreadsheet showing the figures. The consequence of a levy increase in the City plays out differently from that of the district. Under an annexation proposition, the City must adopt the levies of the District so it becomes a junior taxing district over the City. Under Washington law, the city has a maximum authorized levy under state law of $3.60 per assessed $1,000 of property value, but if we adopt an annexation and become part of the fire district we are required to reduce the maximum authorization from $3.60 to $2.10. Approximately 57 cents of the general levy currently supports fire services. If the district is successful in raising its levy to $1.25, the Council could not do a dollar for dollar roll back without serious consequences because funds currently allocated for other uses would be decreased by that amount. The City could bank the 57 cents but the overall levy would still see a'net increase. He added that the levy rate is adjusted in subsequent years although the total dollar amount generated each year does not change. It would be a significant increase to the voters in any case. Mr. Timmons said that if the District acts alone it would create a wedge in the interlocal agreement which was set up on an equity basis so that both sides were paying the same amount from their tax collections into the fund. The proposed Council Special Business Mtg and Workshop with East Jefferson Fire Rescue Feb. 22, 2010 Page 2 of 5 District action on the levy would result in three options for the City: 1) run a levy to support the additional Fire cost; 2) look at taking the money out of current expenses from other services; or 3) support annexation, which puts the entire ball into the District's court. Any of these options would require policy action from the Council. Mr. Stapf stated that it is important that the Council and Fire Board are on the same page; they have a good history of cooperation for the past three years and must agree on a plan. He hopes that tonight we can come to an understanding that at some time it will be necessary to do an annexation; however both entities have to address their levy rates for EMS and General Fund. He added that East Jefferson is now operating on about half the funding of most fire districts in the state. Most districts go for the maximum $1.50 for fire and 50 cents for EMS. He again emphasized the importance of the unity of the two entities. Mr. Randels asked for clarification about the annexation process, whether a majority of district and city voters must approve annexation and if either entity votes no on annexation, annexation fails. This was confirmed by Mr. Watts. Ms. Sandoval stated that decisions need to be considered about which steps will occur, when those will take place, and the implications and how the City would gain representation on a joint board. Mr. Wyll said that if the vote is put off until November, the District deficit will continue to grow. He added that the fire district coverage has gone up to the benefit of all and that the District is now running at a $250,000 deficit. Mr. Bondurant added that the alternative is to cut staffing which would cause a serious deficit in the District's ability to provide services. Mrs. Medlicott pointed out that the District is operating on a levy that was established in the late 1990s and that the demographic of older citizens means that the call volume continues to grow. Mr. Stapf noted that everyone agrees that service is better now than three years ago and everyone probably agrees that annexation will be on the table at some point, the question to be answered is when this will be done. Mr. Randels noted that this is very short notice for a levy and expressed concerns about the short amount of time available to provide education about the ballot measure. Chief Pomeroy expressed confidence that the public will support the levy, citing other fire and school districts which have recently been successful. There was discussion about the various ways ballots could be proposed, including whether more than one measure could be placed on the same ballot. Mr. Watts stated that if both the City lid lift and annexation were on the same ballot, many Council Special Business Mtg and Workshop with East Jefferson Fire Rescue Feb. 22, 2010 Page 3 of 5 outcomes are possible. If the annexation passes and the City levy fails but the District lid lift passes, then the new annexation district picks up the District lid lift. The only way to nullify a lid lift would be by subsequent voter determination to lower the lid lift. Council could do what we did with the library and say if both passed, the city could choose not to levy the increase although it would still go into effect. Ms. Nelson pointed out a discrepancy in language in one of the resolutions ("no less than" or "not to exceed"). Chief Pomeroy stated that more recent revisions state an exact amount. Mr. Welch noted that the City can't possibly do an annexation on the April ballot and that August would be the earliest possible date for that vote. If the District delays the levy it would put them in a tough place. Mr. Randels noted that if the District goes with a levy vote in April, the educaton process has to start very soon. Mrs. Medlicott agreed that the City should propose annexation in August and the District should go forward with the levy in April. Mr. King stated in a perfect world he would like the annexation vote to come first, but the growing needs to support the efforts of the District must be met and the District has to find the money somehow. Ms. Nelson stated it would be easier to explain annexation to city citizens first, with the explanation that the citizens can then vote to determine their level of service. She added however that it is unrealistic for the District to wait for the annexation which would allow all to vote on the levy. In April, if the fire levy passes, then the annexation may be perceived as a City rate raise in the guise of the annexation (rather than going directly to the citizens for a raise). The rollback for the City makes it a very complicated message. If the levy were to fail in the District and then we tried to ask for annexation, it may still be perceived as another way to raise taxes. Mr. Stapf asked the Council if they would be comfortable putting a measure on the April ballot to restore the City levy to 50 cents; so in April the District and City go together on resetting the EMS levy to 50 cents. In August, the City and District could propose an annexation. An EMS levy lid lift in the District and the City would generate about $600,000. With the current deficit, the lid lift would alleviate the District's financial deficit. He stated that a dual campaign would probably be successful. The bottom line for the District is that they need $600,000. This amount would not increase service but would remove the deficit and the District would be assured of that level of funding for the next year. Mr. Randels stated that he is concerned about voter support being diluted by proposing separate consecutive levies ("I just gave you money and now you want more.") The $600,000 may be a stop gap but does open up to a degree the election dates in 2011 should they be needed. Council Special Business Mtg and Workshop with East Jefferson Fire Rescue Feb. 22, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Ms. Sandoval asked for public comment and the group heard comments from Howard Scott. Mr. Timmons added that a general levy for the city is not a dedicated levy as it is with the Fire District and that is more difficult for voters to understand and accept. Mr. Stapf stated that citizens will want to know what is going to be done with the $800,000 which is freed up in the general fund if the levy is passed. Mr. Randels stated that an intensive campaign would have to be set in motion quickly. Ms. Sandoval strongly stated the necessity of working together to educate the public. The time frame for an April vote is too short to stage a big event like a town meeting regarding the levy proposals. Discussion ensued about whether a resolution for a levy or annexation would also set out representation issues. Mr. Watts noted this issue could be addressed through a concurrent Memorandum of Understanding. This method should be determined and agreed to ahead of time. Mr. King asked how long after an annexation vote would annexation take place. It was thought that the annexation could proceed after certification of the election. Mr. Timmons stated that staff will need to research issues relating to the annexation and whether the makeup of the Fire Board could be on the same ballot. An annexation vote is straightforward but a separate ballot item could address the makeup and number of members of the Board. He added that these ballot measures need to be researched as to content and format and explained thoroughly to the citizens. There was further discussion about what the effects would be if one EMS levy passed and another didn't. There are many scenarios. It was noted that the ballot issue deadline is March 12 so Council must discuss and decide on their action at the next regu{ar meeting on March 1. Mr. Timmons stated that staff will research the various issues and bring forward a draft resolution for the March 1 Council Business Meeting. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Attest: ., << -~~ Pamela Kolacy, MMC City Clerk Council Special Business Mtg and Workshop with East Jefferson Fire Rescue Feb. 22, 2010 Page 5 of 5